I posted my own RIP three weeks ago, with links to much previous blogging about Dennett, as well as links to Massimo Pigliucci's and John Horgan's takes on him.
Last week, via Firefox, I saw Dan Falk's take on Nautilus, and it needs some refutation on its "10 brilliant insights."
1. The mind is a user illusion. True to fair degree. But, the user is itself an illusion. One of these areas where Dennett didn't go as far as he could have.
2. Free will is an fantasy, but a welcome one. Not so totally. Per Daniel Wegner, I see subconscious varieties of something like free will existing. As for the idea that our legal system would fall part without traditionalist ideas of free will? "Fall apart" might be too harsh, but, more importantly, contra Dennett's larger implications, maybe it NEEDS reformation.
Beyond that, Dennett's comment there and elsewhere that we need free will sounds like the reverse side of Robert Sapolsky saying "I love determinism but I refuse to draw logical conclusions from that."
Actually, even more, it sounds like the type of comment about religion that would be on the lips of a stereotypical 19th century Anglican divine, that we need it to enforce morality, even if none of it is true.
And, Dennett himself didn't really believe this.
After all, his first big book hit was "Brainstorms." Dan didn't repudiate free will in that book.No. 2 was "Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting." He certainly didn't repudiate free will there, as shown by the subtitle alone. It's been long ago, and I don't have reviews posted on either, but I know this. In fact, he doubled down on that 20 years later in "Freedom Evolves," and that one IS a review.
In short, on this one, Dan Falk is either repeating a lie by Dennett, badly misunderstanding him, some combo of those, or worse.
3. Consciousness on parallel tracks? First, what Dennett described running on parallel tracks, or perhaps more accurately, what Falk thinks Dennett is calling "consciousness," is not. It's subselves of subconsciousness. And, is it "brilliant"? Only if one thinks it's new. Falk obviously either hasn't read or doesn't remember his Hume. Hume's only lack was not to talk about multiple streams running at the same time. That said, maybe Dennett isn't so totally right on that. His idea was ultimately a Darwinist one, and I've already rejected his algorithmic claims about "dangerous acid." As in ...
4. The power of Darwinism? Dennett's extolling of the power of algorithms and Darwinian universal acid is all tosh and tommyrot. Period.
5. No miracles allowed? True? Yes. But? Not brilliant and not Dennett's.
6. Cultural evolution can mimic biological evolution. "Can," but Dennett's own fine print hedges — and undercuts Point 3. (Oh, Dennett was wrong about memes, too, and Susan Blackmore has repudiated most of her early thought and comments on them. Fanbois don't like to hear that.)
7. Religion doesn't need to be abolished, merely fixed. The reality of Dennett on religion elsewhere, per Horgan, undercuts this. And, of course, I think Dennett, like Dawkins, did think that Islam did indeed need to be abolished.
8. Behavior is predictable? Not as much as Dennett claimed, per his fine print. But, to the degree that a "light cone" (not a narrow ray) of behavior is predictable, not totally brilliant and not totally new.
9. The truth really does matter. Uttered in part by Dennett against things like "woke" versions of the sciences, and true there, on the hard sciences. Not so true on the social sciences, but bespoke by Dennett from his hoity-toity, OSS-dad, New England past.
10. Reality is more magic than miracles. Unequivocally true.
No comments:
Post a Comment